A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.

Originally posted by topski100 A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.

True.

Odd how some days ago people were already bitching that the cars were too similar. Wide of the mark there.

Originally posted by topski100 A positive point of the new aero rules is how, so far, the cars are individually identifiable, when compared to the previous five or so years, when, all painted white, it was difficult to tell them apart, kinda seemed like a one make series to some arm chair fans.

The different designs so far show the imagination of the aero designers, with the various interpretations.

That was my thought too. Good to see some a differentiation of design concepts...

I am going to walk to the ING headquaters here in The Netherlands tommorow, present them a picture of the new Renault R29 during their lunch, and will record the time before they puke.
Trust me, this won't take long.

After that I will tell them that if they ever **** with my bank account like Renault ****ed with their livery, I will sue them

From what I have seen from many of the individual threads, many are complaining about the livery rather than the design, hence the popularity of the frumpy Williams.

The liveries of the Mac & Ferrari are truly superb, while the other paint jobs are either bland or puke-worthy (so far).

Generally, apart from the front wing design, I am enjoying the different solutions each team has come up with so far. For the first time in over ten years we actually have distinct differences! If they were all black or white, we could, with certainty, pick which was which! I'm not sure which is going to be the fastest, but I like the shape of the Renault, although the clunky front wing pylons don't quite fit with the rest of the flow.

Unfortunately, the outcome of new regulations is normally one team being streets ahead of the rest. :

Originally posted by Rabbit123 I don't think all these rule changes were even necessary. I mean, 2008 was like, one of the best seasons ever. perhaps a with a slight lack of overtaking, but the Hamilton/Massa battle and Vettel's success and everything else has really got the world's attention, it's been a season full of surprises and excitement. It seems strange that just as F1 is really coming good, people are moaning that it's not exciting enough and there's no overtaking. Fine, bring back slick tyres, that's a good idea; but all this over stuff with the massive front wings and the simple body shape and everything, there's no need for that.

New rules were necessary, but I think the OWG should had choosen for a better, less controversial solution. It found out that, if you want downforce, high downforce-config wings provide the best racing. OK, but why didn't they ban the diffuser? This would had enforced teams to use high-downforce configs to regain as much as possible of the lost downforce.

The same could be said about the central part of the front wing. This part is now standardised and must be flat. They could had achieved the same by simply banning the high nose cones.

I remember one of the BMW drivers saying the new car was "ugly" - something to do with the wide front and narrow rear wings. It took me a while to get used to these new proportions.

My view now is that the clean, uncluttered lines of the 2009 cars (not just the BMW in the picture, all those I have seen so far) are so much nicer, imo, more aesthetically pleasing - beautiful? than the 2008 cars that have all the projections, wings and fences popping out everywhere.

Other opinions please and I thank BMW for putting the 2 cars together.

My view now is that the clean, uncluttered lines of the 2009 cars (not just the BMW in the picture, all those I have seen so far) are so much nicer, imo, more aesthetically pleasing - beautiful? than the 2008 cars that have all the projections, wings and fences popping out everywhere.

Completely agree. Compared to last year's car, I think that the 2009 BMW is........seriously beautiful.

it's a pity all adds they have (and i like the renault livery):
-i saw in the newspaper a pic from one of those cars we saw yesterday.
-witch one?
-the philips one.
-hum... but the bull one was fastest.
-the vodafone was in there too.

I'm not too excited by the '09 look. The rear wing is gruesome, regardless of whose car it is on. IMO the 'beauty' of the car is reflective as much because of the graphics rather than any design. I must say that the 'torso' of the Ferrari is striking, much more so than the Toyota, as an example. The Toyota looks too stretched out for my tastes. As has been mentioned, kudos to BMW for lining up the '08 and '09 cars, so we the poor fans can do a decent comparison. I must say that I like the uncluttered look of the new car. Let's hope that the rules keep the aero bits off of them although I'm sure there are enough loopholes for the designers to navigate.

Let's see what they all look like in Oz though. That'll be the big test...

I think I've finally gotten used to them. I quite like them now, except the high frontal shots that make the rear wing look higher than it is. The slicks look glorious, and I much prefer the clean lines to the flip-ups - especially those rear flip-ups for the rear wheels. I've always hated those. Was the rear diffuser widened or moved rearward or something? It seems bigger or more prominent.

I seriously doubt that any team would sacrifice performance for aesthetics! F1 isnt a beauty contest.

And somehow wierd looking solutions never seemed to have stayed for long in F1. Honda's elephant ears, and in early days of MS at ferrari they tried super high winglets, they never lasted.

The X-Wings, as you refer to, were pioneered by Tyrrell in 1997, and they were banned after Argentina (I think, but I might be wrong) in 1998 due to aesthetic reasons. I can't quite remember the FIA wording as to how they banned them, but presumably it was no bodywork above a certain height or something.

Originally posted by dentistTubster The X-Wings, as you refer to, were pioneered by Tyrrell in 1997, and they were banned after Argentina (I think, but I might be wrong) in 1998 due to aesthetic reasons. I can't quite remember the FIA wording as to how they banned them, but presumably it was no bodywork above a certain height or something.

The flat tops of many sidepod exhaust uplets and winglets over the last 3 years or so would allude ot this upper limit IMO.

The flat tops of many sidepod exhaust uplets and winglets over the last 3 years or so would allude ot this upper limit IMO.

As is most usual, like with most of the bodywork regs, there is presumably an invisible box where no bodywork is allowed (or the engine winglets, like the horns that BMW uses and Mclaren pioneered, would not exist).

Heck, the rear wings don't look that bad on low downforce settings, it's at high angle that they really stand out in an ugly way...
(I didn't look at regs but it would make sense, if there's sort of a bottom-limit to the wing, that any degree in the angle of attack would translate into a higher, 'taller' wing..?)

I've just realised what the new cars make me think of.............a small child playing 'dressing-up' in her mum's clothes. The huge tyres, narrow sidepods, over-wide front wing and over-high rear wing are all so horribly proportioned, nothing fits.

I'm probably the only one, but I find the new cars nice: I like the huge front wing and I never liked the small aeros growing everywhere in the cars (aero mushrooms). The small rear wing reminds me that the cars have lower rear end grip – nice.

Anyway, you'll all be finding them beautiful: as soon as you watch them win races. Just consider Cristiano Ronaldo: the guy is a winner and all the girls want to bed him. If he were a normal guy the same girls would be noticing that he seems a Neanderthal.

Originally posted by Cesar Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.

Each team will need to bring an extra transporter this year- to store spare nose/wing units. The first turn of each race looks to have a high probability of cluster-f.This is especially true for the back markers.

I guess, in the end, F1 has always been about the triumph of creative thinking, design and technology over the regulations. That's the F1 game. The more restrictive the regs, the more effort (and money) needs to be thrown at it to find an advantage. So, if the cars are ugly, that's just the way it is. Blame the regs. As for cost cutting, well.....

Originally posted by superstring I guess, in the end, F1 has always been about the triumph of creative thinking, design and technology over the regulations. That's the F1 game. The more restrictive the regs, the more effort (and money) needs to be thrown at it to find an advantage. So, if the cars are ugly, that's just the way it is. Blame the regs. As for cost cutting, well.....

It's a little bit OT but you can still build nice-looking racing cars as Aston proved. If it drives half as good as it looks then Audi and Peugeot will not have an easy life at Le Mans.

Originally posted by Barry Boor That is gorgeous.... however, I fear if it ain't got a diesel engine, they might as well stay home.

I feel your pain, diesel race engines are boring as hell BUT... I rented a car last summer. It was a brand spanking new ford focus (uk) with a 1.6L petrol engine. It was slow as hell and even driving like a grandma up the A1 for 3 hours the car was not capable of getting more than 34mpg. The last car I owned before moving to London 3 years ago was a 1998 (first generation, a full 10 years older!) ford focus 1.8 turbo diesel. It was much quicker and did 55mpg. Im amazed that in this age of environmentalism such inefficient petrol engines are allowed to be sold. And on that bombshell... are diesel engines not perfect for endurance racing???

I feel your pain, diesel race engines are boring as hell BUT... I rented a car last summer. It was a brand spanking new ford focus (uk) with a 1.6L petrol engine. It was slow as hell and even driving like a grandma up the A1 for 3 hours the car was not capable of getting more than 34mpg. The last car I owned before moving to London 3 years ago was a 1998 (first generation, a full 10 years older!) ford focus 1.8 turbo diesel. It was much quicker and did 55mpg. Im amazed that in this age of environmentalism such inefficient petrol engines are allowed to be sold. And on that bombshell... are diesel engines not perfect for endurance racing???

EDIT: Misread your post barry Thought you said "if its got a diesel"

I know it's OT, but the 1.6 diesel Focus is a dreadful thing. I got the dubious priviledge of driving one for a couple of days last year for work, and it had no poke whatsoever. Handled as Fords do (very well) and to be fair was pretty torquey, but torque's no good if it's pulling you to a pedestrian speed ;)

Originally posted by Barry Boor I have no axe to grind regarding diesel road cars; they just should NEVER PUT A DIESEL IN A RACING CAR!!!!

I have no problem with diesel race cars - it is different but so what - if the engineers can make it work.

What I didn't like - in the way of fuels - was the methanol that CART used ( Does Indy Car still use it?) Not sure of the sensibility of a fuel that burns when exposed to air and has no visible flame. The first clue you have to a fire is the driver on the ground rolling back and forth. The only plus is that it can be put out with water.

Originally posted by Cesar Indeed, I think the rear wings we can get used to.

But I don't think we will ever get used to those terrible front wings, I think they will be modified for 2010 anyway, as I fear there will be some accidents like Kubica in Canada 2007.

I was thinking the same thing. Front wing designs look fragile, look too easy to be knocked with someone elses, too easy to come in one BIG piece. We could possibly see cars get both front wheels riding on their own front wings. The worst F1 accidents seem to come from front wing riding, ie no steering capabilty. Kubica, Burti et al.

Watching the Melbourne free practice... yep, the cars are very ugly (add the obvious IMHO). I'm not going to bitch about it since it's the name of the game but as a car and aestethics lover they do look weedy, dumbed down and ill proportioned. Whatever you say about all the aerodynamic adenda of yore they looked like the pinnacle of motorsport, now they look like Dyson A1GP cars except with thiner rear tires (another big no-no)

And for those who only care about "exciting" races... I guess if F1 rules changed only allowing giant brown shoeboxes with wheels to be raced that indeed provided lots of overtaking, than all would be well.

Originally posted by Barry Boor Why? Have you ever heard a diesel racing car? Racing cars should make NOISE!

Diesels do make noise! Only a lot less.....It would help if the turbo's were taken off but I have no idea how large an atmo diesel has to be to generate an equal amount of power as the current turbodiesels in WTTC and LMGTP

I think that the worst offence ever committed to racing in your eyes were probably the Indy STP turbines???

I rather see nice looking cars that make less noise (diesel is fine thank you) then hearing the ugly contraptions of today that are not even stupid enough as if taken out of a comic book in which they appeared, deliberately blown out of proportions with the intention of looking rediculously comical....